Laserfiche WebLink
61490.10 (76) <br />TO: Mayor and City Council <br />FROM: Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrato <br />DATS: August 6, 1990 <br />a"- 13 <br />nncr-r) <br />:vCIi.TECT: Park Dedication <br />Attav':hneiit:A. C. E. VanEeckhout Letter Dated 4/25/90 <br />B. Park Dedication Memo Dated 4/6/90 <br />C. Draft Response to Mr. VanEeckhout <br />D. Park Dedication Fee Implementation Process Draft <br />E. Resolution #1252 - Park Dedicacion Fund Dated <br />2/23/81 <br />ISSUE - <br />1. Presentation to Council regarding objections to Council's <br />adopted ordinance by Mr. VanEeckhout. <br />2. Allow Council to determine what action, if any, they want to <br />take based on those objections. <br />INTRODUCTION - Hr. VanEeckhout’s objections 1?.'^. k° <br />Ue City Attorney’s office. These issue. <br />Attorney's office with him and reviewed as to their legality. <br />DISCUSSION - Hr. VanEeckhout raises three specific issues as to <br />legality ’^f the following: <br />1. Obtaining a park dedication from land previously <br />subdivided. <br />2. Use of park dedication fees for development or <br />maintenance. <br />3. How directly must a cash in lieu of land <br />be related to that subdivisions impact of the park <br />syrtern? <br />Additionally he raised the issue of adopting a Park Needs <br />Assessment prior to an ordinance. <br />The is«-ue that is most sensitive legally is <br />previously subdivided property paying a dedication. <br />6oes present substantial problems in determining <br />tubdVvided o\er 20 years ago. The other two areas questioned in <br />the ordinance have adequate legal foundation although the term <br />maintenance should be refined. <br />Additionally the Attorney recommended adoption of the following <br />additional languauge in Attachment D.